On 2/19/10 8:53 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Reinauer
> <stepan at coresystems.de <mailto:stepan at coresystems.de>> wrote:
>> On 2/19/10 8:42 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
>>>> > Oh shoot. This broke all the patches I am just preparing... Oh
>> well.. It'll have to wait until next week then.
>>>>>> Since I broke everything anyway, you could just revert the whole
>> thing. I liked the idea of CONFIG_DEBUG going back to DEBUG,
>> though.
>>> Yes, so do I... But making it depending on YABEL_DEBUG_FLAGS may
> not be the right thing, unless the code is also modified to check
> for the bits in yabel debug flags explicitly.
>> I'm not sure why a non-zero check isn't good enough. I haven't used
> the YABEL debug flags very much.
Because you'd suddenly get IO debug outputs whether you specify
YABEL_DEBUG_CPU_PREFETCH or YABEL_DEBUG_IO :-)
Well, no need to worry for now... I think it's fine. I'll prepare my
patch because that takes care of this in a place or two....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20100219/087c62ae/attachment.html>